The document critiques the logframe as inadequate for managing NGO work, suggesting it suffers from structural limitations and usage issues, including a lack of feedback loops and overly complex language. It advocates for better alternatives, such as a social framework that emphasizes the role of actors and their relationships in the change process. The proposed social framework promotes clarity in accountability and influence, contrasting with the logframe's shortcomings.

1. Q: Is the LogFrame is the right tool for managing most NGO work? A: Not as it is used. We could do better, with better tools

2. Caveats Criticism here is of LogFrames only, One member of a wider family of logic models The LogFrame has mutated into many forms There is no one pure model My concern is with finding better alternatives Which are “inter-operative” My evidence: M&E consultancy >1990, plus 3 UNICEF and 1 GTZ project in Indonesia, 3 DFID funded, 1 AusAID funded, 2006-2009

3. 1. Criticisms of the structure Use of time as the main axis presents three problems Artificial, abstract, confusing distinctions between points in time (A>O>P>G), where none exist in reality No feedback loops (these are not possible, because time cant go backwards) Complex linkages between row events are left out, even if a Problem Tree Analysis was done before Four rows only, and often only two are used

4. 2. Criticisms of how they are used Goals that are generalisations of lower level events, rather than describe their results Long, complex, unreadable sentences, in the narrative column, trying to say too much A story line that is impossible to follow Frequent absence of references to who is involved, and too many descriptions of abstract change processes Overly simple indicators used to describe complex developments

5. 3. Wider usage issues Accountability and Learning issues Excessive focus on horizontal logic. Even more so in the new DFID LogFrame layout Opportunities come from explicating and testing the Theory-of-Change (vertical logic). But who is interested? Introduction of weighting of outputs in DFID ARs is a positive development!

6. A healthy mutation…? Develop a Social Framework , where Each row describes a type of actor The sequence of rows describes a chain of actors , forming a pathway along which influence takes place Assumptions column can describe how these actors are influenced by a wider network of actors surrounding them

7. Advantages Who is involved and responsible at each level is clear. This enables participation Two way influence process is built in What matters is the functioning of the whole chain (= distributed accountability) Relationships between two levels can be magnified to show detail, by related tools

8. Sources “ The Logical Framework: A list of useful documents”, at www.mande.co.uk “ The Social Framework as an alternative to the Logical Framework” at www.mande.co.uk

9. Example Social Framework UK NGO In-country partner Other CSOs A Government Assumptions MOV OVI Forest communities